The passage of California Proposition 1A (2008) set in motion a complete reconstruction of the railroad between San Jose and San Francisco. This blog exists to discuss compatibility between HSR and Caltrain, integration issues, and the impact on adjoining communities.

07 April 2009

The Berlin Wall Effect

Much of the controversy surrounding high speed rail on the peninsula arises from a concern that HSR may form a disruptive barrier that physically and visually separates neighborhoods on each side of the tracks and undermines the urban design goals of the communities along the corridor. (Photo at left: a Caltrain embankment in Belmont.) This impact is often described by drawing an emotionally potent analogy to the Berlin Wall.

The flaw in this analogy is that it assumes that a barrier must be both visual and physical. Semantics? Not really: visual and physical barriers are not necessarily the same thing. This distinction is very important to the high speed rail debate, and is totally lost in the Berlin Wall analogy, intentionally or not.

Strong Physical, Weak Visual

A barrier can be physically strong--preventing pedestrian, bike or auto access across the tracks, and negating the ideals of a walkable, bikeable community. And yet, that same barrier can be visually weak. The Caltrain tracks through Palo Alto (street view at right) are an excellent example of a strong physical but weak visual barrier. In a span of four miles, there are just nine places where pedestrians may cross. There are even fewer crossings for cars. And yet, the tracks are visually unobtrusive and concealed by vegetation.

In many locations along the Caltrain corridor, an invisible "wall" already exists today, so deeply ingrained into daily circulation patterns that few ever notice it. That's no wonder: it's been there since before any of us were born.

Strong Visual, Weak Physical

Some new grade separations envisioned for high speed rail, depending on how they are built, may create new visual barriers. The strong visual impact of raising the tracks, with the addition of 30-40 feet of overhead electrification wiring, understandably has some neighbors worried.

However, physical access would be preserved and even improved because trains would no longer interrupt pedestrian, bike or road traffic flows, as they currently do about 100 times a day. Given that physical access would be maintained (and possibly improved) by HSR, the analogy to the Berlin Wall falls apart. While the Wall's primary function was to deny physical access, the function of a grade separation is to allow physical access across the tracks.

A local, real-world example of a strong visual but weak physical barrier is found in Belmont. The retained embankment is ugly and intrusive, as shown in the opening photo of this post, but it has several crossings through it--for example, as shown in the photo at right, taken from just a few feet away. The Belmont Caltrain station, at El Camino and Ralston, has a very pedestrian and bike-friendly design with direct access across the tracks.Grade Separation Design Values

Access across the railroad tracks can be optimized for different users, and the best grade separation design really depends on whose needs are prioritized first: bicycles and pedestrians, cars and trucks, or the train. No design will be perfect for all three. Many communities that have grown and gradually saturated their historical main arteries are now making an effort to relieve auto traffic by improving access and circulation for bikes and pedestrians. What are the features of a grade separation that promotes a walkable and bikeable community?

Minimal grade change. That's not just a matter of convenience; the ADA requires extensive ramps or elevators where significant grade changes occur. Elevators in particular create maintenance and sanitation problems. While such features are sometimes necessary, they are generally expensive (also profitable to build!) and are neither pleasant nor quick to navigate. It is best to avoid this problem altogether, by keeping pedestrian / bike / wheelchair access as close as possible to grade level.

Direct and short. The design of the access paths to a crossing should avoid forcing bike / pedestrian traffic onto circuitous detours from their intended path. If the point is to get across the tracks, let people get across the tracks quickly. Long access paths remove freedom of movement and make the user feel constrained and unsafe because of how long it takes to get across.

Open sight lines. Tunnels and ramps that twist and turn without providing a clear line of sight to the other side do not convey to their users a sense of safety and destination. No amount of lighting, fancy landscaping or architectural detail can compensate this problem.

The best option is, of course, a train tunnel that makes the problem disappear and entirely removes all physical and visual barriers, including what barriers may exist today. As long as they don't have to pay for it, anybody would logically support this option... but given that tunnels are likely to be prohibitively expensive, what is the next most reasonable option?

81 comments:

At-grade crossings are dangerous for pedestrians and vehicles alike. One of the last times I tried to take Caltrain to BART to SFO, I had to go by car after a northbound train hit a car in Mountain View, disrupting Caltrain service for hours.

It is disappointing to see NIMBYs opposed to grade separations, since usually people with genuine concern about their neighborhoods also value the safety of their neighbors. Thanks for writing a post on this important topic and generating some discussion of all the alignment alternatives for grade separations that would improve pedestrian safety, vehicle traffic flow, and simultaneously improve Caltrain's efficiency.

One point that might not have been considered about the "suburban subway" concept.

Subways are normally because the value of surface land justifies the expense ... and in that case, the kind of development that I am thinking about here will not occur.

But put a tunnel out in suburban territory ... even million dollar house suburban territory ... and there will be a push to recoup the expense by developing on the tunnel cover.

And for a suburban area with a busy thoroughfare like El Camino Real on one side, and some suburban residential area on the other, what would development on a 50ft to 100ft wide ribbon along a busy main thoroughfare look like?

I'm thinking apartments, condos, Taco Bell and Burger King.

I don't think that the local residents being recruited by anti-HSR campaigners to the "tunnel or nothing" strategy of making the corridor so expensive to build that it derails the project quite realize the end game here. If the anti-HSR campaigners win the battle but lose the war, and the HSR goes through anyway in a tunnel, fighting to get the back end of a Taco Bell across their back fence is likely not what the local residents have in mind.

Where an embankment is possible for a split-grade separation, the rail line going up 5ft to 10ft and the grade separations passing underneath ... landscape the embankment and plant trees along the edge, and the visual impact in a residential neighborhood is softened substantially. Even a 10ft retained fill has less visual impact if it is provided with a living wall and the base of the wall landscaped.

The latter would probably leave these cities in better shape but would be politically difficult. It would also be expensive, as they'd need to be very generous (1.5-2x times market value, I'd imagine) with takings for "cosmetic" purposes.

Clem, your issue, today, is for professionals only; do not try this at home. My background is in the arts, urban design, aesthetics and developmental psychology. I taught this stuff. You are obviously a rail professional. But, perception is my domain. What you are hearing from all us NIMBYs and dismissing, is a totally valid concern and perception.

Your case is well stated, but with wrong conclusions. The basis for your case is a judgmental, not a factual one. Those of us who identify a high retaining wall or berm as "the Berlin Wall" or "Great Wall of China" of course do not mean that literally. We realize that there will be many crossings. What is important is exactly the perception. In this case perception is reality. The immediate indicator of this will be the fall in property values on both sides of the rail corridor, especially in the residential areas. Structures such as they will propose industrialize and commercialize the adjacent real estate. That's why it is not necessary to object to those high-rise walls where the corridor "surround" is already commercial or industrial.

In our towns, the current two track corridor, with its ample foliage of trees and shrubbery, does in fact blend in well with the suburban "surround" and supports that small town feel we are now working so hard to protect. We can kiss all that good-by.

Four tracks; a much wider rail corridor; twice as many trains; catenary towers even higher than we had previously supposed; massive mounds of dirt or concrete rising up 20 ft., all of this imposes a huge psychological divide and barrier. How can it not?

Urban environments break up into enclaves based on our collective perception of their socio-economic status, ethnicity, quality of life and other factors. This vast rail barrier promises to do exactly the same thing; i.e., divide our cities in two, but even more compellingly than anything the current corridor does now. (Talk about "the wrong side of the tracks.") Those people who rant that we should have known what we were in for when we moved close to the corridor haven't a clue to what they are talking about. Size matters! Bigger is worse! Much bigger is much worse! And, so we say, enough is enough.

Clem, come visit me and "walk in my shoes" before you dismiss our perceptions as invalid.

First, it is very unlikely they can do eminent domain takings purely for visual amenity.

Second, how much width a berm needs depends on how high the track is. Full elevation to around 20 feet to allow all motor vehicle traffic to pass, including semi-trucks, and only over-sized loads having to pay serious attention to posted height limits ...

... that is a wide berm.

On the other hand, for the most part its a wide corridor.

And of course, if the height you can reach with a berm only comes four feet short, then a four foot retained fill wall, with a landscaped berm above ... well, a four foot wall has only moderate visual weight, and it can be softened further with vines spilling down and with shrubbery at eye level.

Use split elevation, and the height of the track is much lower, the width of a berm much less, and the visual weight of a retained fill wall much less. A 10ft wall covered with plants using a living wall attachment would have less visual weight than a 7 foot concrete wall. 10 foot would allow additional new pedestrian and cycle underpasses at grade, even as the road underpasses dip down for full clearance ... 5 foot would mean pedestrian and cycle underpasses have to dip down as well, but bringing a cyclepath up alongside the wall to pass over a busy motor underpass is easier, so that's a mitigating factor.

just an FYI - I was at a presentation that was given by PA City Council Member John Barton at a home in Southgate. As you may know, he is pro-HSR - but also very pro-tunnel. He is an architect - so he and some buddy's have been working on some ideas on how a tunnel might look and what can be put above ground (ie. air rights). Obviously, he was interested in the Urban Design of the city - specifically, what increased density might look like.

The term "Berlin Wall" actually came from a slide in his presentation. When Palo Alto "awakened" it was because of this meeting - word spread quickly and the term "Berlin wall" moved like wildfire.

I agree with Martin - this is a matter of perception. If you look at the City of Palo Alto's website and their plans for the city - you'll often see a reference to the "Urban Canopy."

Palo Alto is known for it's greenery and having a massive concrete embankment cutting through the city at a height that seems as tall as a tree (to a person standing) would obviously seem like a wall. Also note that while there is greenery on the track now - you can see through to the other side - so visually it still seems quite open.

On a side note, I just picked up a copy of The Power Brokers - the story of Moses building up NY. The descriptions of his proposals back then were dubbed "the Great Wall of China"

Put a living wall installation on that concrete, and shrubbery at the top of the wall, and its a lot more compatible with a "urban canopy" than what is most likely to happen with suburban subway through Palo Alto ... unless Palo Alto pays for the incremental cost of the tunnel, then they can put whatever restrictions on it that they think they can afford.

A local community specifying the most expensive option and then paying for the incremental cost would be fine for Caltrain and HSR, as long as they do not expect to be able to cheat on the required capacity by double tracking a tunnel that needs quad tracking.

Obviously a tunnel likely rules out a station, given legacy rights on use of the track, but a town that is that eager to open up suburban cul-de-sacs to main thoroughfares can just drive to the next town to catch the train. And its not like a town like Palo Alto has any major destinations, as such.

Since Martin raised the concept of perception, can I just say that HSR opponents who use the term "Berlin Wall" don't do themselves any favors? They may feel that the arrival of HSR is a Very Bad Thing. They are entitled to their opinion. And by using the phrase "Berlin Wall" they may intend to evoke a reference to a totalitarian divison imposed upon innocent people. But when I hear "Berlin Wall" I also think of watchtowers with guard who would shoot civilians trying to cross it. I think of all the people who died trying to escape East Germany. To my ears, using "Berlin Wall" in the context of grade separation of the Caltrain ROW seems like excessive hyperbole, and it diminishes the strength of their argument. And that's my perception.

My neighbors down here on the Peninsula have some valid concerns about the arrival of HSR, but in my perception using terminology like "Berlin Wall" or invoking the ghost of Robert Moses does not aid them in their cause. To my ears, it makes them sound irrational. I'm just sayin'.

There are a lot of very smart and creative people in the Silicon Valley. It seems to me we can put some of those brains to use to develop a solution that is reasonably acceptable to everyone.

In my view, Caltrain ought to be grade separated everywhere, regardless of HSR. For everyone's safety.

clem I hope you are not presuming to discount the importance of the aesthetic visual barrier effect on the quality and economic value of the town, its properties, its homes, and its businesses. The visual aesthetic can make the difference between a slum and a desirable livable neighorhood or a great travel destination. Hear this: HSR is cutting off its nose to spite its face if it thinks inserting concrete walls through desirable Peninsula real estate is a 'good enough'.

Andrew - would you GET OFF already the "nimby's opposed to grade separations". No one is opposed to grade separations. What they are opposed to is getting their towns 'fixed' by a bunch of hacks that don't give a shit about the aesthetics, quality, character of their town. Caltrain can just as easily remain 2 tracks, can grade separate themselves in a way that DOESNT DAMAGE the WHOLE F'N community - without CHSRA help.

David S - don't worry, tunnels are OBVIOUSLY infeasible, CHSRA isn't going to pay, and either are localities going to have the funding - so the other option you forgot to mention is that the whole thing becomes infeasible when the properly account for cost economic impact for ruining these towns, loss of property values, and total cost of mitigation for this route. To make it happen in any over gruond scenario CHSR is going to paying for a lot more property than just the narrow widths of backyard lands directly adjacent to the ROW. When they (finally) get around to putting the concept of these walls on paper, they're going to paying for reverse condemnation in untold numbers for half miles widths or more around that miserable destruction - well beyond the ROW. They'll be paying for property destruction at the newly created grade separation crossings that will be enourmously destructive to streets perpendicular to the ROW. They'll be paying for replanting trees, and they'll be paying for local property to plant those trees on. They'll be paying for loss of value to historical buildings. they'll be paying for loss of economic value to small town down towns. They'll be paying paying paying paying paying paying paying paying paying. This route will make like Altamont look like a walk in the park. (oh yeah, they'll be paying for loss of quite enjoyment in, and replacmene of, community parks.. and school sites - good luck finding the equivalent available space to buy these towns new parks and schools.

Wow, from these posts, it looks like 'berlin wall' invokes alot of emotion doesn't it? I think they've used exactly the correct term to capture the intangible aspects that an elevated structure brings.

The difference is perspective - literally meaning the eye-view now, vs then. Today, you see trees, you see houses, you see down the cross roads (across the tracks) at streams of kids riding bikes, you see landscaping you see neighors and neighborhoods, you see trees. You see Paly games happening across the street. With walls, - you see wall. You don't even see roofs, let alone houses. You see wall. you see miles of wall. In fact, you see GLARE and feel HEAT reflected from the wall. You see graffiti. You see concrete. You see accidents from Alma slamming into wall. You see extremely towering tall high voltage spanning 75 feet wide over the wall. You see WALL.

If CHSR proponents think for a split second that its going to be CHEAPER for them to do a WALL through these towns, they have quite another think coming. Their GREAT GRANDKIDS will still be fighting in courts before a WALL gets built through the middle of these towns.

I agree - the term "Berlin Wall" doesn't help. I don't use the term - but I was just offering some background on how the term became part of the "general speak" around the city.

As far as the Moses comment - I haven't read the book yet (I just skimmed a few pages), but from your comment I'm guessing that he was a very controversial figure. It was not my intent to tie Moses to what is happening with this project. I apologize if you feel that it was an ignorant statement. Once I've read the book, I'm sure I'll have more perspective.

My point was only that the general population lacks the sophisticated architectural vocabulary to distinguish between an "elevated berm, retained embankment, etc." For most people who want a quick visual, the term "wall" would come to their minds first - and unfortunately, there are few "famous" walls and they have terrible histories associated with them.

There needs to be more outreach in the communities - that is the bottom line. I appreciate how the frequent posters on these blogs are constantly coming up with new pictures and solutions to some of the issues that are raised by concerned citizens.

The criticism of those who are concerned is that they don't offer solutions - but the truth is most don't have a clue what is financially feasible and what isn't - let alone what is feasible from an engineering perspective.

I'll give you an example - when people propose the tunnel - it is partly because they can't imagine how much money would need to be spent to move the current Caltrain tracks and UP tracks to continue to run these trains while HSR would be built. With the narrow ROW - people assume it would be cheaper to tunnel - therefore keeping Caltrain and UP going. Also, the idea of partially closing Alma to do this would be a huge traffic nightmare - which people can't even fathom.

Perhaps for the average poster on here, there are a million things wrong with those assumptions - but to the average person - this seems logical.

I hope you will continue to offer your solutions - they sound better than what HSR has proposed.

Clem, thanks for posting - I hope HSR does a better job with the outreach portion of this project. If not, it is doomed to fail.

I completely agree that CHSRA needs to do a better job on outreach. Unfortunately, they have been operating on a shoestring for a very long time, and good outreach gets pushed down the list of priorities when you are trying to figure out how to keep the lights on.

"The Power Broker" is a fascinating read, I hope you find it interesting. Robert Moses is dead and buried and thank goodness for that. For all the venom that some people have for Ron Diridon or Quentin Kopp, neither of them have the kind of power that Robert Moses did, and it's a good thing.

No, I am not a rail professional (sorry if it isn't obvious). My line of work is aerospace.

I don't dismiss any of the claims that visual impacts matter. A lot.

As for walking in your shoes: I've personally been in this situation before. A multi-story project went up right behind my house, taking away good views. I've walked in Jim McFall's shoes. I created 3D renderings and presented them to city council. And yes, I was steam rolled, too!

I also don't assume that an elevated right of way is the only way to build this railroad. Limited trenching is an option that might make a good compromise, although the numerous creeks do make it difficult. In the particular case of Palo Alto, I believe there will be some non-elevated solutions that do not involve tunnels. (stay tuned for a future blog post).

@Resident:

Aesthetics, quality and character all have a price. You claim the CHSRA (and the taxpayer) won't be able to afford it, because of the litigation involved. I suppose we'll see. The mere threat of litigation is no reason to stop a proper engineering and environmental assessment of the HSR project. Let the CEQA / NEPA process play out, and then we'll have something to talk about. Let alone litigate.

Clem, thanks for posting - I hope HSR does a better job with the outreach portion of this project. If not, it is doomed to fail.

Outreach from CHSRA is likely to improve with both more funding and more information, like from the Project EIR drafts, which just formally started being worked on this week.

CHSRA did send engineers and spokespeople to two separate Palo Alto community meetings to answer questions from very hostile audiences over a month before the comment period for scoping of the EIR closed. That was not a bad start to outreach from my perspective as someone who lives a few blocks from the tracks in Palo Alto with my family and who was also interested in learning about the HSR plans for my town at this early stage in the process.

However, if the only acceptable form of "outreach" is to concede to NIMBY demands without properly studying the alternatives for alignments, then I do not think the CHSRA should pay much attention.

Andrew - would you GET OFF already the "nimby's opposed to grade separations". No one is opposed to grade separations.

That's great news that no one is opposed to grade separations. Unfortunately there are some people opposed to every possible way of building grade separations. People oppose above ground solutions based on aesthetics or noise, below ground ones based on cost or root damage to trees. This suggests that while "no one is opposed to grade separations", many people will be opposed to whatever the final grade separated solution is for each road crossing.

What they are opposed to is getting their towns 'fixed' by a bunch of hacks that don't give a shit about the aesthetics, quality, character of their town.

This is why the CEQA process for EIRs exists. Nobody should expect non-Palo Altans to care as much about our town as we do. However, caring about our town is not the same as having veto power over state-wide infrastructure projects. We should all be working toward HSR being built in the most attractive way possible, within the constraints of what we can afford as a city, state, and country.

We need to recognize that we may not be able to afford tunneling under Palo Alto and even if we could, we may not desire it. I personally like the concept of tunneling in neighborhoods where houses abut both sides of the track. But I remain open-minded about the above-ground alternatives and have begun to like some of them much better than I did as I have learned more of the details about them.

Caltrain can just as easily remain 2 tracks, can grade separate themselves in a way that DOESNT DAMAGE the WHOLE F'N community

That is, unfortunately, not the case. Even if the EIR were to conclude the "no build" option for SF to SJ is preferred, that would still mean HSR trains from LA to SJ. How would tens of millions of HSR passengers each year get from San Jose to San Francisco or points in between? Largely by transferring to Caltrain, which would need at least 3 and probably 4 tracks to accommodate the surge of additional ridership and train traffic. Leaving Caltrain as a 2 track system is not viable going forward, since it would ruin the operational efficiency of the entire HSR system coming into San Jose.

The other thing to keep in mind is that under CEQA and NEPA laws, the CHSRA and their consultants are not allowed to show a preference for one or the other design alternative--anything else could be construed as bias in the environmental review process. They are very sensitive (paranoid?) to this, which is why we are repeatedly hearing these bland statements like "we'll consider all options" and "we don't know the details yet". It makes them sound a lot more clueless than they probably are.

I'm sure if stuff "leaked" on a blog, it wouldn't compromise the process, would it? (For the record, I would certainly protect the anonymity of any sources...)

The EIR process is going to be very interesting. I am especially interested to see how the "No Build" alternative is construed. For instance, does the "No Build" alternative include an electrified Caltrain? After all, Caltrain's electrification program is separate and underway. Of course, CHSRA is not going to select the "No Build" alternative, as it will be a straw-man. The "No Build" option will be as pathetic as possible.

For all the claims of EIRs being objective, EIRs are decidedly political documents. The actual measured data within EIRs is usually factually correct, but the analysis becomes biased according to how the data is presented, what modeling assumptions are made, how project criteria are defined, etc.

resident said...... You see wall. you see miles of wall. In fact, you see GLARE and feel HEAT reflected from the wall. You see graffiti. You see concrete. You see accidents from Alma slamming into wall. You see extremely towering tall high voltage spanning 75 feet wide over the wall. You see WALL."

And there are two alternatives:

(1) engage in the process of honestly informing the design process about what features are important ... for visual amenity, for pedestrian access, for bicycle access ... and the difference in different parts of town ...

(2) assume or be conned by HSR deniers into believing that there is some secret design lurking somewhere and the whole process of soliciting input on how the grade separations should be design is some massive con job.

In the first, a constructive contribution is made to the process, and the result is likely to be better than if no constructive contribution is made. The risk is that its still not what you would have desired.

In the second, the design is not informed by the wishes of the residents of your community, and the result is likely to be less desirable than if there has been constructive participation. However, for maintaining an aggressive opposition stance, that risk means that its easier to maintain local opposition, and the possibility of delaying the project for a while is increased.

"If CHSR proponents think for a split second that its going to be CHEAPER for them to do a WALL through these towns, they have quite another think coming. Their GREAT GRANDKIDS will still be fighting in courts before a WALL gets built through the middle of these towns."

If anyone in the Peninsula thinks that they can tie this up in courts permanently, they are fooling themselves. They may be able to delay the CA-HSR project, or at least the northern portion of the project. They may be able to score political points against the CHSRA. But several oil price shocks in, the patience of the rest of the people of your state will wear thin.

And having polarized the process, they will end up getting a design that did not receive their constructive input getting rammed down their throats.

And, seriously, how can anyone graffiti a living wall? Sure, I guess you could find a color of paint that shows up when painted on top of the foliage, but it makes as much sense as spraying graffiti on the leaves of a tree. Someone comes along, snip snip snip, the graffiti is a small pile of randomly painted leaves on the ground.

many people will be opposed to whatever the final grade separated solution is for each road crossing.

Keep reminding the NIMBY's that one of the options is NoBuild. Not as in NoHSR but as in HSR trains and Caltrain trains sedately passing through the grade crossings 20 times an hour in each direction. Caltrain and CAHSR can just decide to run trains over the existing track and make up time someplace else. Central Valley at 225 MPH instead of 220 might just do it. 25.1 Kv between Gilroy and Sylmar....

I personally like the concept of tunneling in neighborhoods where houses abut both sides of the track.

Sounds like a great idea. Do we increase just their property taxes for it or everybody's in Palo Alto? We could do a head tax, Keeping the arithmetic simple 600,000,000 dollars spread around 60,000 Palo Altans isn't much... Me, 2500 miles away in the wilds of Upstate New York ain't gonna pay for. They bought cheap real estate near an active railroad. Too bad. I'm more than happy to help pay for HSR. I'm not very happy about paying so people who bought the cheap real estate along the tracks get a windfall.

Leaving Caltrain as a 2 track system is not viable going forward, since it would ruin the operational efficiency of the entire HSR system coming into San Jose.

They could probably operate quite well on two tracks, Intially it's only going to be 12-15 trains an hour in each direction. Making stops in places like Palo Alto may not be possible but it could be done on two tracks. And someone would have to go rooting around in the ROW's agreements made in 1863 etc. but there's not going to be things in them that make all the trains stop in Palo Alto. Probably things like "twice a day" They could do it Northbound at 3 and 4 AM and Southbound 5 and 6 AM.

You see WALL

I lived in metro New York City most of my life. I look at those videos, the bare minimum animated ones ( which considering they were done for free, are quite good. ) and I see railroad viaduct. That's what railroad viaducts look like. What's the big deal? It's not like Alma Street is some meandering bucolic bowery, it's a main throughfare.

Someone comes along, snip snip snip, the graffiti is a small pile of randomly painted leaves on the ground.

Probably don't even have to cut them off. Nice layer of paint on them, they fall off all by themselves.

In the end, money and constructibility are in the front seat. If they can't keep Caltrain and UP traffic flowing during construction, the alternative ain't going to float. There's your fatal flaw.

The whole situation is an obvious tip of the legal hat to the Altamont supporters. By the way Pleasanton would have made this exercise near Stanford look like a walk in the park...they sue anything that moves and call the cops when helicopters buzz I-680 or Camp Parks at night. The Niles Canyon and Alameda Creek people are very defensive as well.

At the end of the day, don't let the engineers do too much design or you will end up with a transit sewer [dank underground station] or "Berlin Wall". There is a middle ground and we will get there but its going to be a bumpy ride. Improved traffic, BART-quality Caltrain service (with better cars I understand), no gate, no horns and no bells and no awful collisions between people and trains is worth its weight in gold. But what do I know, I live 5 blocks away and this is my window on reality.

The whole situation is an obvious tip of the legal hat to the Altamont supporters. By the way Pleasanton would have made this exercise near Stanford look like a walk in the park.

Yes, it is true there are Nimbys _everywhere_, but the impacts along Altamont route would be orders of magnitude less. Bear in mind that Pacheco affects not only Palo Alto but also: Menlo Park, Atherton, Morgan Hill, etc.

For all the claims of EIRs being objective, EIRs are decidedly political documents. The actual measured data within EIRs is usually factually correct, but the analysis becomes biased according to how the data is presented, what modeling assumptions are made, how project criteria are defined, etc.

In the case of the Pacheco routing decision, the CAHSR has already certified two very flawed and factually incorrect EIRs. So, the agency's credibility is pretty much shot; i.e. don't expect a fair and balanced treatment this time around.

BTW, I don't have much patience for nimbys that move next to 100-year old rail ROW, and then complain about impacts. It will be interesting, however, to see how the CHSRA finesses the traffic circulation impacts of a greatly expanded Palo Alto station, which I expect to rank second only to San Francisco in terms of passenger volumes.

The street on which you live is going to be turned into a 6-lane freeway in the coming year. The design and EIS/EIR work has already started. We're very sorry about that. But, since you moved on this street, you should have known that it would be expanded some day. We may have to take your house under eminent domain, but we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good. And, by the way, it's too late to sell your house since you now must disclose the fact that it is going to be destroyed to make room for the highway.

If they can't keep Caltrain and UP traffic flowing during construction, the alternative ain't going to float. There's your fatal flaw.

They built the grade separations in Belmont and San Carlos with Caltrain running on shoofly tracks. The likely solution for any above ground construction in Palo Alto is similar--run the trains on one or two temporarily closed lanes of Alma Street. Hardly a fatal flaw, it's not even complicated civil engineering, let alone rocket science.

To make it happen in any over gruond scenario CHSR is going to paying for a lot more property than just the narrow widths of backyard lands directly adjacent to the ROW. When they (finally) get around to putting the concept of these walls on paper, they're going to paying for reverse condemnation in untold numbers for half miles widths or more around that miserable destruction - well beyond the ROW.

So if the linear right of way through Palo Alto is about 4 miles long and the width of "reverse condemnation" is fully a half a mile wide, that is 2 square miles, or 1,280 acres. Even at Atherton prices of about $4 million per acre, that would be an eminent domain cost in the range of $5 billion.

Tunneling may prove to be more expensive than that for 4 underground tracks through ground with toxic plumes, aquifers, and a high water table. A 2-track tunnel for BART under downtown San Jose is estimated to cost $3.2 billion for a similar distance underground, but with half as many tubes.

Anonymous said..., though they were not confident enough in the point to bother to pick a pseudonym,

"@bikerider

The street on which you live is going to be turned into a 6-lane freeway in the coming year."

To make the analogy correct, it is already a 3 lane freeway. This is not making a single track branch line used once a night into a HSR corridor ... this is the main trunk rail corridor between San Jose and San Francisco, two of the largest metropolitan areas in the state.

"The design and EIS/EIR work has already started. We're very sorry about that."

"But, since you moved on this [freeway], you should have known that it would be expanded some day."

"We may have to take your house under eminent domain, but we all have to make sacrifices for the greater good."

Except, of course, its a railway line, which is 25x times more space efficient than a freeway, so in reality, the eminent domain takings are more like 6 foot of a backyard, and those can be avoided if the community specifies that it prefers a viaduct to eminent domain possessions ...

"And, by the way, it's too late to sell your house since you now must disclose the fact that it is going to be destroyed to make room for the highway."

Except there are no houses to be destroyed, and if there were, in this housing market they would get more from being paid out for eminent domain than they would get on the open market without the rail expansion going through.

Indeed, this is part of the problem. Californians imagine its like a freeway, because of the massive transport capacity involved, when its more like a road widening project. The gross waste of acreage for road projects trains people to think that all transport is a space glutton.

It's going to be better than BART. I'd say that right now it's better than BART. Locals, expresses, limiteds...it's 2025 and you are in San Jose and you want to get to San Francisco. The Caltrain fare and the BART fare are more or less the same. Do you take Caltrain or do you take BART? Not that they should extend BART to San Jose.

"reverse condemnation" is fully a half a mile wide

It's too early in the morning to laugh that hard. It's an active railroad. They will do things to lessen impacts but there aren't going to condemn things a block away much less a quarter of a mile away. An eighth of a mile away you won't even know the trains are there.

bikerider: "It will be interesting, however, to see how the CHSRA finesses the traffic circulation impacts of a greatly expanded Palo Alto station, which I expect to rank second only to San Francisco in terms of passenger volumes."

It is not yet established that the station will be in Palo Alto. Indeed, if Palo Alto pays for a tunnel, and of course that tunnel is likely to be taking some diesel traffic, its not entirely clear how they propose to keep a Caltrain station ... you cannot have platforms in the middle of a tunnel with diesel trains.

Maybe an open trench at the station. If that's in the middle of town, there goes the air rights in the place where the air rights would be most valuable.

Clem said... "I also don't assume that an elevated right of way is the only way to build this railroad. Limited trenching is an option that might make a good compromise, although the numerous creeks do make it difficult."

It seems highly likely that every alternative other than extended tunneling will be used at one point or another along the line. That is, all eleven options will show up somewhere, provided communities are fully involved in the design process.

Fully lowered underpass with the line at grade

Partially lowered underpass with the partially elevated line on either side of the underpass:* on embankment* on retained fill* on viaduct

Road at grade with:* full elevation on embankment* full elevation on retained fill* full elevation on retained fill & embankment* full elevation on viaduct* full trench

Partial overpass with a partial trench

Full overpass with the line at grade

There may even by short stretches of tunneling, especially where full trenches are capped for a block or two. That would make an even dozen options in use somewhere along the line.

And while the choice of one option in one location may limit the choices on neighboring locations, there is a lot of flexibility in there.

For instance, a town that place the highest priority on avoiding eminent domain takings may choose a fully elevated viaduct with mixed use space beneath for several blocks in the town center, then a retained fill for the transition to partial elevation on landscaped embankment through a suburban area when reaching the surrounding suburban area.

Another town that is not so interested in protecting its property owners from eminent domain may opt for a capped trench in the middle of town, leading to an open trench, leading to a partial trench through the surrounding suburban area.

A town that has money to burn, wants to have the maximum amount of land taken from the current property owners through eminent domain and wants to be as aggressively anti-Transit Oriented Development as they can be could opt for a tunnel, with the town center Caltrain station relocated to the edge of town. Heck, above the tunnel could be one long strip mall between the town center and the park and ride station at the edge of town, since nothing says the future like lots of parking lots.

They could probably operate quite well on two tracks, Intially it's only going to be 12-15 trains an hour in each direction.

If HSR makes all local peninsula stops between SJ and SF, taking nearly an hour and a half for 47 miles, you may have a point.

reverse condemnation

My understanding (yeah yeah I'm not a lawyer) is that reverse condemnation suits are only possible if the land was condemned in the first place, by taking a piece of it or restricting the zoning in some harmful fashion that restricts its use. Mere proximity to the expanded tracks, however loud and ugly they might be, is not condemnation.

For example, if they build through the Ventura neighborhood in Palo Alto and keep everything within the ROW, there would be no condemnation and thus no basis for reverse condemnation lawsuits. Ditto in Atherton, which has loudly rattled its saber on the reverse condemnation issue.

The Palo Alto Caltrain station already has highest number of trips, outside San Francisco. Much higher than Diridon station (which was so important to put on the "main-line" that all service to East Bay and Sacramento was eliminated).

So from a planning perspective, it would be nuts not to have a Palo Alto station, though I suppose stranger things have happened with this project....

If HSR makes all local peninsula stops between SJ and SF, taking nearly an hour and a half for 47 miles, you may have a point.

Nah four tracks south of Palo Alto, two tracks with no stations through all the towns that can't make up their minds about where to put the big scary choo choos. Just leave the existing grade crossings in place, the ones that will more or less be closed all the time during rush hour. Widen out to four tracks again north of Palo Alto and the other the towns that can't make a decision. Be sure the conductor announces on every train "Sorry we have to slow down here but the towns we are passing through never let us upgrade the tracks." Be sure to have a blurb in the magazine the first class passengers get in the seat pocket, on about writing your legislator. That's one of their alternatives.

One of the other alternatives is to give them a tunnel but because it's a tunnel they lose their Caltrain stop, nevermind getting an HSR stop.

Or while they are fighting the new tracks and catenary have all the HSR passengers get off in Redwood City and bus them to Mountain View... on Alma Street and El Camino Real. There's lots of alternatives to a rational plan. Many of them are not pretty.

The EIR process is going to be very interesting. I am especially interested to see how the "No Build" alternative is construed. For instance, does the "No Build" alternative include an electrified Caltrain?

I suspect it will not simply because Caltrain electrification isn't funded (talk is cheap...), so there's no realistic chance of it happening in the near future w/o HSR.

That being said, if they did use electrification and grade separations as the "no build" alternative for Caltrain, then the HSR alternatives would appear to have very minimal impact (just adding a couple tracks doesn't have a big impact if the line is already electrified and raised).

bikerider said..."It is not yet established that the station will be in Palo Alto.

The Palo Alto Caltrain station already has highest number of trips, outside San Francisco. Much higher than Diridon station (which was so important to put on the "main-line" that all service to East Bay and Sacramento was eliminated)."

HSR ridership isn't automatically an extension of commuter rail ridership. For one thing, a half hour Express San Jose to San Francisco will, on standard ridership models, attract substantially more patronage than the existing Caltrain services will attract.

The argument for Palo Alto station is, rather, "The University". The origin station for the Peninsula can be anywhere in the middle of the Peninsula ... but its Palo Alto that has the strongest destination on the Peninsula.

"So from a planning perspective, it would be nuts not to have a Palo Alto station ..."

The argument that the opportunity to have the back end of a row of thoroughfare fronting stacked townhouses ... or even better, a Burger King or Taco Bell ... behind the backyard of a Palo Alto suburban cul de sac home will be better for the property value of that home than a landscaped berm is nuts as well ...

... the argument that reducing noise a few hundred feet away and eliminating level crossings will require massive eminent domain payments for miles around is nuts ...

... but there are people claiming that a tunnel is the most preferable option. "Crazy" ranks high among what people are claiming as desirable options.

In Palo Alto's case, the town center (University Ave or Downtown) is already at the edge of town (on the Menlo Park border).

... or even better, a Burger King or Taco Bell ...

This statement suggests that you are not at all familiar with Palo Alto. You are correct that a lot of development above the existing tracks would occur if they did all end up underground, but it would be attractively architected 3-4 story condo buildings and office buildings for technology businesses and the lawyers and venture capitalists that service and fund them. Office rents in the strip of Palo Alto near the downtown station are often higher than in Manhattan and condo prices are similar (~$1 million for a 2 bedroom luxury condo). There is more venture capital money managed in Palo Alto and Menlo Park than in all of Europe (or in New York or Boston). Taco Bell will remain over on El Camino Real, where it already is.

Obviously a tunnel likely rules out a station

Not so. An underground station is perfectly feasible and a couple of freight trains late at night are not relevant, since the diesel exhaust can either be ventilated out of the station or eliminated by requiring electric freight trains on the route. There is very little freight traffic on these tracks and it is more likely to decrease than to increase in the future, despite what Union Pacific claims.

It seems increasingly likely that the final alignment for HSR in Palo Alto may be above ground due to cost and underground engineering complications (aquifers, toxic plumes, etc.), but your above comments sound like the same fear mongering for which we criticize the NIMBYs.

"For one thing, a half hour Express San Jose to San Francisco will, on standard ridership models, attract substantially more patronage than the existing Caltrain services will attract"

Pure BS.

The HSR will have substatially higher ticket cost (at least 3X), particularly on short distance trips (per their very own EIR).

Not to mention more complexity and time for boarding HSR (where there are security checks, people with luggage and kids and vacationers and pets, and assigned seats, and...) versus a quick commuter line.

PLUS, the incremental time savings of HSR between SF to SJ will be miniscule when you take in to account that HSR rate of speed will be severely limited by curves and other constraints. People won't flock to HSR over caltrain when added cost, inconvenience, for BARELY any time saving.

You are correct though in saying that demand for Caltrain ridership is not automatically translatable into demand for HSR ridership. HSR is by design a long distance mode of transportation, which intends to compete with AIR TRAVEL (not commute travel.)

AIR TRAVELERS AREN"T ON CALTRAIN. They're at the airports. And most of those air travelers aren't even from the Peninsula corridor anyway. SFO and SJC Serve ALL of Northern california - not just the small strip of Peninsula that HSR will be constrained to.

CHSRAs imaginary millions of riders that are going to drive miles into the middle of neighborhood towns, forgoe convenient freeway access to parking and transit that the airports provide, and flock to Peninsula stations? Its just nonsense. Pure garbage.

So from a planning perspective, it would be nuts not to have a Palo Alto station ...

I agree that Palo Alto is the logical location for a mid-Peninsula Station, and not only because Stanford University is located here, but also because we are home to some of the most important business destinations in the area as well, including several major technology companies, law firms, and venture capital funds. As an origin, these same business professionals regularly have meetings in SJ and SF as well as flights from SFO and they actually care enough about the time savings to ride HSR on relatively short distances--like to the airport.

Redwood City is a much less compelling location for a HSR Station, since very few of these high-end business services requiring extensive regional travel are located there. They deserve a lot of credit for rebuilding their downtown and for their clear thinking on desiring a station, but Caltrain ridership is not all that large in Redwood City and that is a concern.

Mountain View, on the other hand, presents a compelling case. Geographically it is a bit too close to San Jose for ideal design, but it has high density of major technology business headquarters and would offer intermodal connection to VTA light rail. Caltrain ridership is higher than San Jose, just behind Palo Alto. My understanding is that Mountain View is now actively lobbying for the Station after Palo Alto City Council shot themselves in the foot by filing an amicus brief in support of Atherton's NIMBYs.

Having HSR tracks with no station means all the costs of building HSR and few of the benefits. Palo Alto needs to aggressively pursue getting the mid-Peninsula Station located at University Ave. A station would significantly increase our property values (based on comprehensive studies from Japan and France). Tracks alone will not.

Resident, it's not a given that there will be security theater on HSR. You can't hijack a train and take it to a different destination. There is little point in subjecting HSR patrons to security theater when there are commuter trains running on adjacent tracks. Unless you plan to subject all Caltrain passengers to security screenings too. Good luck with that.

The people down here who are likely to be interested in a Palo Alto station and a Palo Alto to SF ticket on HSR are people who work in the Silicon Valley and need to go to SF for a business meeting. Right now, Caltrain in the middle of the day is too slow (roughly one hour) and then you wind up at 4th & King, which means adding a cab fare to your hour trip and $12 roundtrip ticket. So most of those folks drive up 101 or 280 and then have to pay an arm and a leg to park in the Financial District.

When you consider the cost of parking in downtown San Francisco, HSR is going to be a very competitive choice vs driving for a lot of people, even if the ticket price is 3X or more than the price of a Caltrain ticket. No traffic hassle, no parking hassle, you can work on the train, and 20 minutes to the City? That's pretty attractive, even at 3X the Caltrain fare.

Not to mention more complexity and time for boarding HSR (where there are security checks, people with luggage and kids and vacationers and pets, and assigned seats, and...) versus a quick commuter line.

Security for HSR need not be any different than security for Caltrain. Obviously, if they are on the same tracks there is no difference in which train a terrorist might choose to target. The Madrid train bombings illustrated this point very clearly. Acela in the Northeast has no unusual security checkpoints today, despite 9/11, London, and Madrid having already occurred. Airplane style security is not sensible for rail transport.

CHSRAs imaginary millions of riders

HSR systems have attracted tens of millions of riders per year nearly everywhere they have been built: Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Europe. Japan's Tokaido shinkansen had over 3o million passengers in its first full year of service, 1965. France's TGV cleared the 10 million mark in 1984. Taiwan hit 15 million in its first year, 2007, and double that in 2008. Korea's KTX had 18 million in its opening year, 2004, and in 2008 it had 38 million passengers. In almost every case air traffic between the major city pairs served by the HSR fell ~50%.

Nobody has to like HSR, but making up the facts is foolish. If we build HSR in California, it will almost certainly carry millions of riders per year.

"PLUS, the incremental time savings of HSR between SF to SJ will be miniscule when you take in to account that HSR rate of speed will be severely limited by curves and other constraints. People won't flock to HSR over caltrain when added cost, inconvenience, for BARELY any time saving."

You are arguing a red herring. Caltrain will be faster than it is today after electrification and full grade separation, HSR running express with a stop at San Jose, the Peninsula, SFO, and SF-urban will be faster than the most limited stop Caltrain service.

The pricing of the seats pm the SJ/SF route will be to fill the seats available to be filled, not to add demand for new capacity.

So the distribution of the new ridership between Caltrain and HSR is up in the air, which does nothing to contradict the point, that present Caltrain ridership is not an indication of the total rail market SJ/SF after the upgrade.

Faster trip times matter.

Indeed, it is also worth pointing out that ridership is not a perfect measure of how much transport is being provided ... it certainly measures demand for platform capacity, but passenger miles is a better measure of how much transport is being accessed via a particular train station.

resident: "You are correct though in saying that demand for Caltrain ridership is not automatically translatable into demand for HSR ridership. HSR is by design a long distance mode of transportation, which intends to compete with AIR TRAVEL (not commute travel.)

AIR TRAVELERS AREN"T ON CALTRAIN. They're at the airports. And most of those air travelers aren't even from the Peninsula corridor anyway. SFO and SJC Serve ALL of Northern california - not just the small strip of Peninsula that HSR will be constrained to."

This is a common rhetorical bullshit trick.

Say "intends to compete against", which is true, and then treat it as if it says, "intends to only compete against", which is of course absurd.

San Jose to San Francisco is a distance dominated by the heavily subsidized car transport system at the moment. Half an hour HSR and forty five minutes Caltrain Express San Jose to San Francisco will be able to draw from a far larger total travel market than the air travel market alone.

You guys are all bobbing and weaving and blah blah blahing around the fact that PENINSULA demand for trips between SF and SJ is served by Caltrain, and will in the future be served better by a improved Caltrain service. Absolutely NO incremental value is added by an HSR serving up more expensive, and barely faster trips between SF and SJ.

HSR wants to serve up trips between SF and LA - and the truth is, demand for long distance trips FROM THE population in close proximity to the caltrain corridor (THE SMALL STRIP OF AREA directly along the Caltrain corridor) is negligible. Look at a map, the entire West side of the Caltrain corridor is bounded by mountains. The west side is bounded by SF bay. The Peninsula is a Peninsula. The least attractive location to draw in large numbers of northern california long distance market.

The long distance travelers come from a much WIDER market to bay area AIRPORTS which are CONVENIENT TO ACCESS.

HSR stations along the Caltrain corridor are convenient to local commuters who live nearby, they are NOT convenient to anyone other than these immediate peninsula cities.

To test this - ask yoursleves - really, would SFO or SJC be in business if all they were serving were these immediate caltrain adjacent Peninsula towns. No way.

The fact is, people are NOT going to drive right by the convenient airport freeway exits, to thread themselves in to the middles of small cities (thruogh signfiicant traffic issues, narrow stop and go streets, limited parking, limited access to rental cars, transit options, etc).

The market for long distance travel is NOT SERVED by these inconveniently located Peninsula stops. The market for short distance commute rail, is served just fine by Caltrain, without HSR.

(Actually HSR didn't even bother to study - they used SFO and SJC air travel demand as a proxy for HSR demand - which is false. But they'll be REQUIRED to do proper study of CALTRAIN adjacent Peninsula city demand for long distance trips from SF to LA in the next EIR.)

On what basis can one assume that little of the existing airport passenger traffic or future HSR ridership is going to come from that very dense bright red stripe of highest-density population along the San Francisco Peninsula all the way to San Jose?

The implication is that a majority of air passengers are coming in from the East Bay and other parts of California. Since Oakland Airport is busier than SJC, it seems unlikely that everyone in the East Bay always flies out of Peninsula airports.

On the Peninsula, San Mateo County (which includes neither SF nor SJ) has over 700,000 people, nearly as many as San Francisco itself (800,000). Santa Clara County, which includes San Jose, has 1.8 million people, only about half of which live in San Jose. The Peninsula is indeed a massive population center and home to the types of people most likely to ride HSR (and to travel by air, which is why there are already two very busy airports serving them).

For one thing, a half hour Express San Jose to San Francisco will, on standard ridership models, attract substantially more patronage than the existing Caltrain services will attract.

There is a reason why Diridon ridership pales in comparison to Palo Alto/Mountain View/Menlo Park, and it has _nothing_ to do with the quality of current Caltrain service. HSR service should be built around facts on the ground -- and not a politically manipulated ridership model.

HSR opponents who use the term "Berlin Wall" don't do themselves any favors? They may feel that the arrival of HSR is a Very Bad Thing. They are entitled to their opinion. And by using the phrase "Berlin Wall" they may intend to evoke a reference to a totalitarian divison imposed upon innocent people.

The "Berlin Wall" term is not unique to HSR, and typically invoked by opponents of any major transportation or TOD project. Within the Bay Area, at least, it is just part of the regular lexicon used by opponents.

For example, in the case of AC Transit BRT project, "Berlin Wall" is a term thrown around a lot by neighbors along Telegraph Ave -- even though the only 'wall' will be 4" curbs installed on the street to keep cars out of the bus lane.

@bikerider: I did not know that about the term "Berlin Wall" but it does not surprise me one bit. I suppose we need a corollary to Godwin's Law to apply to usage of "Berlin Wall" in transit/infrastructure discussions?

given that tunnels are likely to be prohibitively expensive, what is the next most reasonable option?

I'd say a solution that preserves as many of the existing cross and frontage roads as possible at their present elevation.

Split grade isn't a good option where there are frontage roads, which is basically everywhere between Woodside Rd (CA-84) in Redwood City and Fair Oaks in Sunnyvale.

In the Atherton-Palo Alto section, that means either

* a full height but ritzy aerial structure with new pedestrian and bicycle amenities at grade or,

* running rails in a deep trench where there are now grade crossings and at-grade in a mostly transparent noise enclosure where there are existing underpasses. The space above the enclosure sections could be used for a lightweight park consisting of a boardwalk through a green roof. The space above the trench sections could be used for a regular linear park with large vegetation (hedges, medium-sized trees etc) or else, for affordable housing or small business office space.

Note that there would be a lot more design flexibility if UPRR's Mission Bay Haulers could be permanently diverted across a restored Dumbarton rail bridge before any dirt is turned south of Redwood City. Bye-bye 1% gradient and AAR plate H constraints, at least in Atherton-Mountain View.

If UPRR is amenable to that, it might make sense for CHSRA to help SMCTA to pay off its debt to BART for the SFO extension so Dumbarton rail can be implemented asap. I don't know if a separate EIR/EIS would be needed before a single freight train per weekday each way would be allowed to run through the DENWR.

In Mountain View, elevated tracks don't make sense, since there are lots of existing overpasses. The one at San Antonio is right next to the Caltrain station. Ramps connecting Alma/Central Expressway and the overpass make it impossible to implement four tracks, never mind four tracks plus platform(s). The easiest solution may be to put HSR underground and rebuild the platform(s) on top of the HSR tracks.

Rengstorff and Castro should ideally remain at grade to avoid losing the intersections with Central Expressway or worse, having to remodel that as well. The VTA Light Rail connection to Mountain View should also be preserved. The upshot of all this is that tracks will have to go underground through virtually all of Mountain View if the existing cross and frontage roads are to remain as their current levels.

Caltrain has insisted that its rail operations must continue through the construction period. Since Caltrain is a county-level service and most of its riders themselves residents, it may make sense to have a public discussion about that sooner rather than later. Both technically and financially, there are more options if all rail traffic can be temporarily eliminated from sections of the ROW under active construction.

In Mountain View, that may include VTA light rail. Personally, I think there's a lot to be said for siting the underground mid-peninsula HSR station at Castro. To accommodate four tracks plus two island platforms, it may be necessary to temporarily tear open a southbound lane on Central Expressway.

Perhaps Caltrain and VTA customers would be prepared to accept temporary shuttle bus service around whichever bit is shut down for construction purposes as part of a larger bargain between CHSRA and the peninsula counties. Transferring twice would be a hassle but so is having to put up with years of slow or reduced rail service past the construction site.

CHSRA would have to pay the local county bus operator to provide the shuttle service free of charge to Caltrain and VTA customers, but that might well amount to chump change compared to the alternative.

@Rafael, frontage roads do not prevent a split grade separation. The raised embankment through San Carlos and Belmont butts up against Old County Rd, the historical route of El Camino Real. In many places the embankment is retained by vertical walls. Take a jaunt in Google street view.

In MV, a raised station makes a lot more sense: there's plenty of room for it. I'll do a Focus On: about it at some point; Richard M. has a slick concept where light rail ducks under the 4 tracks and terminates on the transit plaza at the head of Castro st. The VTA light rail station takes up far too much valuable real estate for the few tens of millions it would cost to reconfigure. (chump change as you say!)

Ramps connecting Alma/Central Expressway and the overpass make it impossible to implement four tracks, never mind four tracks plus platform(s).

Look at it from Showers Drive with Google Street view. It appears the platforms run under the overpass. While platforms and tracks are different widths it looks like there's enough room for four tracks. If they have to, they can move the station a few hundred feet north or south where there's space for ground level platforms. It's almost as of CalTrans, had a moment of clarity when they built the overpass and avoided encroaching on the ROW for the trains.

The easiest solution may be to put HSR underground and rebuild the platform(s) on top of the HSR tracks.

I considered that for a moment and .... came up with something that is four tracks wide. You are going to have to explain that more fully. No matter how I rearrange things with the platforms over the HSR tracks it comes out four tracks wide.

Now if it read "Caltrain tracks over the HSR tracks" I come up with things that has platforms that may be less than a track wide... or "HSR tunneled under the station" ...

Oregon Expressway is an ugly concrete full underpass (not split grade) that has to be pumped continuously because it goes below the water table. One of the creeks crosses above it enclosed in a box culvert.

While platforms and tracks are different widths it looks like there's enough room for four tracks.

The San Antonio overpass is history. It is an outdated structure without sufficient width for 4 tracks. In considering options at this location, you can pretend it's not even there.

Rafael: "The easiest solution may be to put HSR underground and rebuild the platform(s) on top of the HSR tracks."

Adirondacker said... "I considered that for a moment and .... came up with something that is four tracks wide. ...

... Now if it read "Caltrain tracks over the HSR tracks" I come up with things that has platforms that may be less than a track wide..."

How else can "put the HSR underground and rebuild the platform on top" be read?

If there is double track and platforms now, then a stack of double track with the Caltrain track on top ... at its current level ... with platforms at the same place ... would seem to be the same station footprint, which is what is impossible to achieve with four tracks at the same level plus platforms for two of them.

Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs are pretty content with how things are along the Caltrain right of way today, but changes frighten them.

To the extent that is actually true, perhaps all we need to do is emphasize the safety improvements of at-grade crossings; ensure that lots of new trees, shrubs, and climbing vines get planted alongside the right of way; and provide an accurate noise study to show that replacing loud diesel trains with a 96-110 dB whistle with electric rolling stock will not be much louder than it currently is (it may even be quieter). No tunnels, no vitrines, nothing complicated besides a large landscaping bill.

in the context a $33 billion project, $10 million is chump change. That doesn't mean it should be thrown out of the window.

I look forward to your focus on Mountain View, especially to your solution for keeping VTA light rail at grade with both Caltrain and HSR running in-between Rod Diridon's pride and joy and the CA-85 overpass. Not to mention the North Shoreline overpass, if UPRR traffic limits the gradient.

"It is recognized that construction of the high speed rail system will have to take place while PCJPB rail service remains in regular operation. The customers of the PCJPB must continue to be served throughout the high speed rail construction program."

Pretty cut and dried. Are you suggeting now that CHSRA abandon the MOU? Or that they are a bunch of two faced liars?

I suggest CHSRA start adding up the massive costs of choosing this route, and comparing it to alternatives, such as placing the HSR on existing freeway corridors.

"Oddly enough, it seems like most Peninsula NIMBYs are pretty content with how things are along the Caltrain right of way today, but changes frighten them."

Sadly, I think most Palo Altans don't realize the implications of Caltrain's Electrification Plan. They think things can remain at grade. Of course, they can for a while, but as you know - once those barriers come down more often because of increased frequency and longer trains, it will be a nightmare. Not to mention the safety concerns you've pointed out.

People are just waking up to what the implications of HSR and Caltrain electrification. It is my understanding that now that Caltrain is involved, there will be much greater outreach to educate the public on what the implications will be and to allow them to participate in the process of offering solutions. Let's not kid ourselves, it will take more than shrubs.

Let's continue to use this blog and it's commentary to help people get on board (pardon the pun).

I think the "NIMBY" reaction is the gut reaction to any huge change. People are naturally resistant to change. If HSR supporters can get past labeling every person who initially reacts negatively NIMBY and really help change peoples minds by using great ideas and some persuasiveness - you have a much greater chance for success.

I'm hopeful this can happen. Kudos to Clem and others for trying to stick to the issues and help offer ideas.

Not everyone is truly a NIMBY - there are many who like the concept, but hate the current proposal. Can we come up for a creative term for them that isn't insulting (like HSR deniers)?

This may sound a bit "Kumbaya" but really - let's try to be inclusive, not exclusive.....

water table problems are a reason for split grade rather than a full underpass.

If the water table issue is an argument against keeping the train at grade and running an underpass under the train, isn't it also an argument against anything deeper than a shallow trench?

Also, I've asked this before, but perhaps PA_Marcher can answer this for me. What is the thinking behind opposing grade separation? Having trains, cars, bikes and pedestrians all crossing at the same grade is a recipe for tragedy. There have been other comments on this blog and others from some Palo Alto residents who categorically oppose grade separations, regardless of HSR, and I don't understand it. People express enormous concern at the impact a raised railroad would have on Paly. And the implication is that they are cheerfully letting their kids cross those tracks at grade to get back and forth to school. It seems like a cognitive disconnect to me, so if someone can explain that, I'd really be interested to understand it.

Bianca, your wrong, and your not listening if you think residents oppose grade separations. However, all grade separations are not created equal. Ask yourself what they are actually opposing. An underpass or overpass over a 2 wide track (without catenary overhead) is quite a different animal than one over a 75ft wide 4-wide track with catenary overhead. Widths and depths and the huge approaches for the much larger in scope HSR/Caltrain combo, and the concrete structures created by such are as unacceptable as solid walls for the trains.

The consideration is not just for the crossing, but for the impacts on the streets, sidewalks bikepaths, homes, driveways, etc on the perpendicular cross streets.

A proper study of the whole neighborhood , including SCALE, will be required for each and every grade separated crossing - CHSRA and many supporters completely oversimply the issues. For example, over or undercrossings at Churchill would be completely infeasible due to the proximity of historic homes on the both sides of the tracks along churchill, you'd be shutting down people's driveways to create underpasses, and on the west side of tracks on Churchill, Paly high school driveway encroachment, plus encroachment on their fields. The issue of grade separated crossing is again, one of SCALE, and inappropriate choice of location given that this is a dense neighborhood area.

HSR belongs on freeway corridors. Its absolutely ridiculous that CHSRA is trying to thread this through backyards, school yard, residential streets.

I think "Resident" is right - the scale is the issue. Plus, understand that there haven't been any widely distributed scaled models for people to see.

In essence, Jim McFall's model is the first real look at HSR's idea of what this would look like going through Palo Alto. Obviously it is easy for people to yell "not that!" - but the average person just doesn't have a "feasible" option - either because of price or engineering, etc.

Robert and Clem's blogs have come up with lots of ideas and pictures - but people generally have a hard time applying those models to their neighborhood. Some people have a good imagination for these things - but most do not.

I personally think the city should invest money in putting together some feasible alternatives. At the last Peninsula Cities Consortium meeting, the idea of having a sort of design competition was floated around - so architects, urban planners, etc. could help come up with the best ideas.

These types of models could really help win the public over - probably not everyone - but at least more than with the plan HSR has proposed.

How else can "put the HSR underground and rebuild the platform on top" be read?

Many ways. I was creating an elevation view looking north or south from the middle of the two current tracks, that tells me how wide things are. An elevation view looking east on San Antonio Circle towards Showers wouldn't be my choice, that tells me how long things are and that there are two levels but doesn't tell me how many tracks there are or if there is one platform or two. Viewing it that way the HSR tracks are under Showers Dr. I was working with the assumption that the overpass is worth saving. If it's obsolete, and going to be torn down anyway, why worry about it? If they are going to redo the overpass it can be designed so there are no supports between the western curb of Showers Drive and the eastern curb of Central Expressway. That would be a bit extreme but it could be done.

If I'm standing on the street above a typical Manhattan subway station, a local stop with four tracks and two side platforms, the platforms are under the sidewalk and the tracks are under the street. Look at it from the center of the express tracks and the street is above the tracks and the sidewalk is above the platforms. If I'm standing exactly between the two curbs I'm above the station but I'm not above the platforms. May not be correct if you were to take out a tape measure but it conveys the concept. But that's only for a typical local stop with four tracks.

The stations along Central Park West are arranged differently. All of them are local stops. Everything is on the west side of the street. The Uptown platform is under the sidewalk and the Downtown platform is under that. The Uptown local tracks are under the lane where cars park ( Legally, NYers double park and triple park ) The downtown local tracks are under that. The Uptown express tracks are under the west most lane of traffic and the Downtown express tracks are under that. So if you were standing on the sidewalk and it became transparent you would be looking down at the Uptown platform. If the Uptown platform became transparent you would be looking down at the Downtown platform. All of the street and the sidewalk is above all of the subway. But I wouldn't describe my point of view from the Downtown platform as being below the Uptown express tracks. It's below the Uptown platform.

All of the subway is under the street. All of the Uptown "side" is above all of the Downtown "side"But the Downtown Express tracks aren't under the Uptown Platform, they are under the Uptown express tracks. Again it may not be accurate if you were using a tape measure but it conveys the concept.

If standing between the HSR tracks, the Caltrain tracks are above. Beyond the walls of the tunnel there is dirt. The platforms are above dirt. Same as they are now. The edge of the platform is over the wall, it probably extends a bit out over the HSR ballast but not the rail. The edge is in the general vicinity of the wall. But that doesn't make the whole platform over the HSR tracks, that still leaves them over dirt. With Caltrain tracks at street level there is dirt under Showers Dr. and Central Expressway.

impossible to achieve with four tracks at the same level plus platforms for two of them.

I agree. Unless you want to rip down the overpass and take lanes from the parallel streets there isn't enough room for four tracks and two side platforms. Why do the platforms need to be there? Go a few blocks north or a few blocks south and there seems to be enough space for four tracks and two side platforms. In the constrained space of the overpass there would be four tracks and no platforms.

No matter what gets done the existing platforms are not going to survive construction of whatever gets built. I don't see a compelling reason to have platforms right there. Move the south end of the platform to Alma and Ferne or the north end of the platform to Alma and Mayfield and it kinda sorta maybe looks like there's enough space for four tracks and two side platforms. Or if you are rebuilding the overpass shift Central Expressway's southbound lanes a bit to the east and get rid of the median. You can squeeze in bit more railroad. Looking at the satellite views it appears that every round trip involves a walk down to Mayfield to use the pedestrian underpass. Putting the station south of Mayfield would be a wash for everyone when you consider their roundtrip.

Again, just looking at rough guesstimates of what's going on from the satellite views. There might be cheaper and better solutions than stacking tracks above or below each other.

Go a little bit farther south to Rengstorff and the first question that comes to my mind is do you have enough length between there and San Antonio to return to street level. I dunno, I'm a not a foamer who can pull things like how many feet you have to travel to get one foot higher out of my cache of peculiar information. Same thing when you go north to Charleston. And we're talking about 25 feet give or take a few between top of rail for Caltrain and top of rail for HSR.

PCJPB rail service remains in regular operation

To me that means the line will still carry passengers, it doesn't mean all passengers will get to all stations all the time by train.

Someone has to ask the PCJPB what "regular operation" means. It may mean single track operation off peak. It may mean that there's only bus service around the construction zone. It's not a train but it is operation.

Not everyone is truly a NIMBY - there are many who like the concept, but hate the current proposal. Can we come up for a creative term for them that isn't insulting (like HSR deniers)?

In general, I have always tried to use NIMBY in a very literal sense, with any positive or negative connotation left up to the reader. As I have said before, I have a great deal of respect for people caring deeply about their own property--it is only sensible. My issue is with those sincere and deeply held concerns being channeled in an obstructionist way to block a major state-wide infrastructure project based on narrow, selfish interest (which the impact on one's own backyard clearly is). To the extent that people who live on or near the tracks can get involved in a constructive way to mitigate the impacts of the project, that is great. I, too, sent lots of comments to CHSRA over the past month to try to optimize the scope of their upcoming EIR/EIS. I do support HSR, but that does not mean I want it implemented poorly through Palo Alto.

My own motivation to comment on a lot of the blogs recently has been to focus people (supporters and hesitaters alike) on the relevant facts. I know Clem has the same goal in mind and has put in vastly more thought and effort than I have.

This may sound a bit "Kumbaya" but really - let's try to be inclusive, not exclusive.....

From what I have seen, factually accurate input in favor or against HSR has been quite welcome on the relevant blogs' comment boards. Everyone has concerns about some aspects of the project. What is not welcome is fear mongering tactics that stray from the facts. Sadly, such nonsense has been widespread in recent weeks. One clear step toward a more inclusive situation would be to see more of the HSR hesitaters insisting that their peers stick to the facts.

There is a pedestrian undercrossing of Central Expressway planned as a condition of the 600 new approved housing units that will be built east of San Antonio station. If you move the station, it's not really TOD anymore.

-Oakland/Berkeley/West Contra Costa to Transbay via AC or BART = 15 to 30 minutes + Muni Bus/Metro 15 to 30 minutes-Capitol Corridor Service every hour to San Jose and perhaps BART to San Jose every 15 minutes-Millbrae/SFO: BART connection and near 280/380/101 (Marin Airporter Bus?)-Transbay also has lots of walk-on traffic and cabs

Besides that, those two stations are pretty starved for access...it's like they're an airport or something...all tucked away next to the bay somewhere far far away. ;)

Redwood City, Palo Alto and Mountain View (???) are more or less local stations and the ridership corresponds with that fact.

Class 2 intercity trains (regional high speed rail trains) would be pretty similar to most commuter rail prices. Long distance tickets, especially on 1st class trains is a different story.

In MV, a raised station makes a lot more sense: there's plenty of room for it. I'll do a Focus On: about it at some point; Richard M. has a slick concept where light rail ducks under the 4 tracks and terminates on the transit plaza at the head of Castro st. The VTA light rail station takes up far too much valuable real estate for the few tens of millions it would cost to reconfigure. (chump change as you say!)

For what it's worth, I don't see any cost-benefit in either aerial or trench solution at Mountain View, so here is what I would propose:

1. Leave the tracks and platforms at-grade. Close off the Castro/Central intersection (more on this below).

2. Move the station "north" a bit so that it is directly at the end of Castro Street. By eliminating the intersection, some space can be reclaimed (so that LRT platforms can fit too).

3. Design the station so that it is not a fortress -- cafes and shops along Castro should not be isolated from the rest of the station.

4. The merchants will demand cars have access to Castro from Central Exwy. However, (if memory serves) there is a rather large surface parking lot just on the other corner of that intersection. I normally oppose such things, but put a parking structure at that corner (you know the CHSRA is going to build lots of garages anyway) which can be used by both train passengers and visitors to Castro St. A ped overcrossing can provide access from the garage to a mezzanine level in the station.

5. For anyone that _really_ thinks there is a need for cars to drive over the tracks there, may I point out that Shoreline Blvd is just 3 blocks away.

Yeah, I know it will never happen. CHSRA is destined to pick the most expensive grade-separation solution imaginable.

Andrew Bogan: "What is not welcome is fear mongering tactics that stray from the facts."

And that is the key. I don't worry particularly much about the intent behind the writing of nonsense or misleading statements ... someone can as easily be sincere, either being underinformed or having been misled by one of the BS peddlers, as being one of the BS peddler themselves. Indeed, if the BS peddlers are effective, they are quickly outnumbered by those who have been successfully misled.

If the statement is nonsense, like 30 minutes SJ/SF attracting no increment of demand compared to 45 minutes SJ/SF, which will attract no increment of demand compared to the current rail trip time ... its nonsense. Working out the sincerity or insincerity of the person repeating the nonsense is not something I think I can do.

"Not so. An underground station is perfectly feasible and a couple of freight trains late at night are not relevant, since the diesel exhaust can either be ventilated out of the station or eliminated by requiring electric freight trains on the route. There is very little freight traffic on these tracks and it is more likely to decrease than to increase in the future, despite what Union Pacific claims."

But ACE has had a longstanding goal of a service over Dumbarton and up the Caltrain corridor toward SF.

Regarding ventilation, unless its equivalent to the air flow in an open trench, I'm skeptical ... I've driven on underground bypasses, and sure, if it was not ventilated people would be dying like flies, but even ventilated, you get a headache.

Anonymous said..."I suggest CHSRA start adding up the massive costs of choosing this route, and comparing it to alternatives, such as placing the HSR on existing freeway corridors."

If Anonymous thinks adding an adjective "massive" is a winning argument, no wonder he or she is so unsure of the quality of his or her argument that he or she decided against posting under a pseudonym.

The benefits of the Caltrain corridor are also massive, when considering the ridership that the HSR line will attract.

And unlike the costs of upgrading the Caltrain corridor, which are going to be a one-off cost and then done, the benefits of putting the HSR line on the Caltrain corridor are going to continue over time.

We already have an economy that was running a long term unsustainable trade deficit because taking action against our oil addiction was unthinkable.

With the Peninsula station on the Caltrain corridor, every connecting Caltrain service is a collector while going to the Peninsula station and a distributor while going away, added on top of being a collector/distributer at San Jose, SFO and SF downtown.

Experience has shown that once the HSR is in service, serving as a convenient connection to the HSR is a valuable thing. So having the Peninsula station on the Caltrain corridor means more frequent Caltrain services with more capacity. And frequency attracts ridership on its own account ... this is the virtuous circle of a dedicated transport corridor experiencing growth in patronage, the flip side of the vicious circle of a line in decline.

And once Caltrain is electrified, that is thousands of trips per day that can be made independent of fossil fuels by upgrading the supply to the grid, without requiring one additional cent to be spent on the transport system itself.

The Caltrain corridor was chosen based on cost/benefit consideration under present conditions. But when you bear in mind that the present conditions it was chosen under were completely unsustainable on a long term basis, and that the benefits of the Caltrain corridor option increase substantially under any sustainable alternative scenario, "present conditions" was a worst case for the Caltrain corridor, and it still ended up with the best cost/benefit.

the issue is that the ROW in Mountain View doesn't appear wide enough for 5 tracks, let alone 6 - especially at the CA-85 overpass. Keeping all three services at grade does not look feasible to me.

Moving the heavy rail station and associated platforms just north of Castro would ease the problem, but probably not by enough. A side platforms needs 10-12 feet, an island 20-25. Plus, stretching out the station creates long walking distances fir passengers transferring to another service, unless you throw in moving walkways.

Bianca said: "If the water table issue is an argument against keeping the train at grade and running an underpass under the train, isn't it also an argument against anything deeper than a shallow trench?"

It depends in part whether breaking the flow of water is itself a trouble, or just water incursion. A deep trench extending below the water table is a pain, with higher construction costs and possible ongoing higher operating costs for sumping.

A deep trench breaking an underground flow is moving toward the "off the table" set of options.

Avoiding the whole issue reduces the set of grade separations to full elevated (road or rail) and split grade, with a floor on the depression determined by the height of the water table.

Of course, a 14 foot high rail overpass gives much more opportunities for cutting the height of an embankment past suburban neighborhoods in the vicinity than a 20 foot high rail overpass.

Also, if the community prefers lower to higher, there is always the possibility of simply putting in lower overpasses, allowing for car, bike and pedestrian traffic but not large trucks.

Indeed, some neighborhoods may feel that sheltering the trans-thoroughfare vicinity of that overpass from large trucks is a good thing. And course, drop the motor vehicle clearance to 8 foot, and you get even more flexibility in terms of lowering embankments, lowering or eliminating infill walls, raising trenches (much of the noise is immediately above the track, so a three foot trench might also make a fine sound barrier as well, if the wall texturing is done correctly).

And when transitioning between rail at different heights or depths relative to grade, the longer the transition is stretched out, the less roller coaster effect ... when there is an existing grade path under a road overpass at one point, and a strong case for keeping the road at grade and putting the rail underneath at another point, the split grade in the frame as one option for a grade separation between the two is a shallow rail trench. Between a full height rail overpass and a rail crossing at grade, the split grade options that enter into the frame are the partial rail elevations (embankment, infill, or viaduct).

In the process of bringing out the maximum diversity of options in order to maximize the chances of community support solidifying behind one of the viable choices, the extreme options define the envelope but it may well be one of the options lying inside the envelope that can attract the greatest community support.

And pragmatically, that is the name of the game ... the reason the dedicated HSR opponents are sheltering with "Tunnels or Nothing", even though their real position is "Nothing", is to find the largest possible coalition.

So the focus has to be on finding viable options that whittle down the "or nothing" side among those who are not in fact opposed in principle to the HSR, or to it passing somewhere through their town.

Rafael said..."Plus, stretching out the station creates long walking distances for passengers transferring to another service, unless you throw in moving walkways."

That depends on whether the platform connection is relatively short. In services where there is flexibility in choosing which end of the train to ride, pulling transfer passengers to one end of the Caltrain service and local passenger to the opposite end may sometimes be a good thing, reducing effective platform congestion.

However, if I understand the proposal correctly, that does not apply here ... (northbound) Caltrain head to LRT tail, and (southbound) LRT head to Caltrain tail, with Caltrain primary local access and Caltrain/LRT transfer on the same ends.

If LRT passengers are less likely to need to park, maybe there could be a parking access toward the southern end of the Caltrain platforms.

The issue is that the ROW in Mountain View doesn't appear wide enough for 5 tracks, let alone 6 - especially at the CA-85 overpass. Keeping all three services at grade does not look feasible to me.

There is plenty of space under the overpass, once you wrap your head around the notion that nine(!) automobile lanes (plus shoulders, plus wide medians) is overkill for any current and future traffic volumes in that location.

But like I said, I fully expect the most expensive grade separation solution to be chosen so as to not impact cars in any way (i.e. massive automobile subsidy).

Not to worry, the good folk of Menlo Park actually like Berlin Walls. That is why they are rallying to rip out the only dedicated pedestrian/bike crossing over 101 in the entire city, maximizing the isolation between the eastern section of the city and the western section:

That's no doubt why they also oppose grade separations. Separations improve connectivity between the two sides of the corridor, which is a bad thing, because it might allow "undesirables" to access your neighborhood.

Stereotyping is dangerous in a grass roots advocacy campaign, since it often leads the side with an interest in avoiding and reversing polarization to play into the hands of the side with the interest in exploiting and amplifying polarization.

So make that, the hypocrisy of some of these people knows no bounds. Opponents of the HSR as such are opposing one form of access to and from their community ... for direct HSR opponents, there is no hypocrisy in being against pedestrian and bike access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people, against bus service access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people, and against Caltrain access from the "wrong" neighborhoods and by the "wrong" people.

Operating alongside the HSR system will be a substantial boon to the Caltrain system, so people opposed to access as such may be being entirely consistent. Despicable, sure ... but not hypocritical.

The people opposing a reduction in level crossing barriers on the basis of the barrier created by removing a barrier, and whole also support removal of a bike access in order to increase the barriers might be hypocrites.

On the other hand, for someone whose position is that they oppose the reduction of level crossing barriers because reducing level crossing barriers is an increase in barriers, it seems more likely they are simply extremely confused, and inconsistency is just a symptom of extreme confusion.

I understand the localization of the concern, but the strategy of HSR opponents to generate support for "Tunnel or Nothing" is by no means restricted to Palo Alto.

"you are correct that a lot of development above the existing tracks would occur if they did all end up underground, but it would be attractively architected 3-4 story condo buildings and office buildings for technology businesses and the lawyers and venture capitalists that service and fund them. Office rents in the strip of Palo Alto near the downtown station" ...

And now you have lost track of the back yards being protected ... "Underground or Nothing" is not a tunnel only in the vicinity of the downtown station, its a tunnel wherever there is a neighborhood with a cul-de-sac with residential property in proximity to the track that objects to the aesthetics of actually the connection to the outside world that their town's continued economic vitality depends upon.

Burgess Park and Alma is better off with a wall with some greenery, an embankment on top if possible to keep the height of the wall less imposing, and even better a split grade separation if possible (working out which option can go where involves taking fairly this steel thread through lots of existing grade separation needles).